Theories of Industrial Relations

– Existing Paradigms and New Developments

Paper to be presented at IREC conference 2008 London, Creenwich

by

Carsten Strøby Jensen University of Copenhagen

Department of Sociology, csj@soc.ku.dk

Theories of Industrial Relations – Existing Paradigms and New Developments

Introduction

In this article we will analyse and discuss theoretical developments in Industrial Relations (IR) research at the beginning of the 21st century.

Since Dunlop in the late 1950’s tried to identify the core of IR-research and argued for the necessity of a more theoretically embedded IR-research, questions about theory have been raised. In this article the theme is raised again and the aim of the article is to present and discuss existing theoretical traditions in IR-research and to identify breaks along with new tendencies in contemporary IR-research.

The aim of the article is thus to identify some major positions in traditional IR-theory and also to identify theoretical fractures and new tendencies in IR-research; and finally to identify and discuss some research problems that IR-theory could be expected to have to deal with in the coming years.

The starting point for this article will be a rather broad conceptualisation of what the subject of IR-research refers to. IR-research tends to deal with the (employment) relation between employers and employees and the ways in which these employment relations are institutionalised and regulated. In some periods the perspective used in IR-research has been oriented toward those types of employment relations that have been embedded in collective institutions (collective bargaining, trade unions, employers associations, actors representing governments and state officials) (Dunlop 1958, Kauffman 2008, Arckers & Wilkinson 2005). In other periods – and that is especially true today – focus has been oriented increasingly towards analysing individualised forms of employment..In this article industrial relations are – in line with Sisson (2007) – conceptualised broadly in the sense that the subject covers both the traditional collective institutions and systems of negotiation, and the more company oriented form of employment relations.

The concept of employment relation has, to a certain degree, substituted the concept of industrial relations in IR-literature (Kauffman 2004). The use of employment relations has two points. Firstly in most Western countries the employment structure is no longer embedded in an industrial but in a post-industrial society, meaning that the word industrial relations can seem rather anachronistic. Secondly it is also possible to identify tendencies toward individualisation and de-collectivisation of employment relations in the post-industrial labour market. In this article we shall still use the concept of industrial relations due to the fact that it more directly relates to a long tradition of research. However this does not imply that the concept of employment relation is rejected.

The theoretical core in IR-research is perhaps even more unclear than the empirical core. The use of theory in IR-research is rather eclectic in the sense that the research tradition draws on many different types of scientific traditions – e.g. economics, sociology, political science, law studies etc (Ackers & Wilkinson 2003, 2005. Simultaneously IR-theory is related to a number of different paradigms inside social science, for example critical theory, action theory, system theory, pluralism etc. It is however, in spite of the many different approaches in IR-research, possible to identify some theoretical areas that are related to social theory concepts like power and interests, collective versus individual, regulation versus market, centralisation versus decentralisation. Fundamentally the theoretical work in IR-research is thus oriented toward understanding and conceptualising the employment relation as a social order.

Later in this article a number of different existing theoretical traditions in IR-research will be delivered. Also new departures in the theoretical landscape will be presented and discussed and

2

finally some concluding remarks will be used to sum up the points and suggest directions for further investigation.

Existing Paradigms and Theories

The purpose of this section is to set out and discuss some of the existing theories and major positions in IR-research as this research tradition has developed and changed in the period following the Second World War.

The starting point for examining which of the many paradigms within IR-research are important can be seen as related to four characteristics. Firstly it should be possible to argue that a paradigm or a theory is characterised by a number of original and independent statements about the IR-area. Secondly a paradigm or a theory should have a certain durability, meaning it should have played a role in international IR-research for a suitable period of time. Thirdly a paradigm or a theory should directly or indirectly offer some kind of coherent theoretical conceptualisation of the field of industrial relations. We will only look into positions that – in their own self-perception – intend to offer concepts that can explain major parts of the IR-field and not only specific sub areas. Finally the paradigms should still, to a certain degree, be actively used in IR-research today.

The following six paradigms or theories that will be presented later in this section are: 1) traditional system theory (Dunlop), 2) Institutional, IR-theory (British pluralism), 3) theories regarding strategic choices, 4) Critical IR-theory, 5) theories relating to individual versus collective forms of action, and 6) Human Resource Management (HRM).

Before we present the individual paradigms however it is important to gather observations about these different theories and their statuses.

The first observation is the fact that theories and theoretical traditions can be looked upon as competing or complementary. In IR-research we find competing theories and paradigms the same as in other parts of the social sciences. That is, theories dealing with the same subject, but offering different types of explanations and interpretations of a given set of characteristics in the IR-field. One example of competing paradigms in the IR-area is critical theory versus traditional system theory. However it is also possible to identify paradigms and theories that are more complementary than competitive in their explanations or interpretations of empirical reality. Such is often the case when some theories focus on some aspects of the empirical world while other theories focus on different aspects. Classical institutional IR-theory focuses mostly on the collective actors and on the collative institutions in the IR-field, while HRM focuses on individual relations between employees and employers. In that sense one can argue that these theories or paradigms are complementary.

The second observation is that of the well-known distinction in social sciences between theories that are related more to structural types of explanations and theories that are more interested in action based explanations. This structure/actions dichotomy is also recognised within the IR-research field and among the mentioned paradigms it is mostly system theory, critical theory and institutional theory that are related to structural types of explanations. Theories about strategic choice, theories about individual versus collective action, and theories about HRM are mostly related to action based types of explanations. The structure/action theme is in this way also present in the IR-theoretical field and is one example that general themes or problems in social science are also recognised in the IR-field

In the following section there will be a short presentation of some of the main concepts in the above mentioned theoretical positions. In connection with each paradigm or theory there will also be a short outline of some of the problems related to each position.

3

1) Traditional system theory. An important and central starting point for a major part of the IR research was J.T.Dunlops book: “Industrial Relations System” (Dunlop 1958). This work has in many ways defined the IR-research area. The book was written in a period where Parsons and structural functionalism dominated American sociology and social sciences. In the book Dunlop tried to put the industrial relation research into the system theoretical framing that Parsons had developed. Industrial relations were – using Parsons – seen as a special subsystem in modern society where special actors and certain codes of conduct dominated (Piore & Safford 2006). According to Dunlop the core of IR-research is the study of relations between management (along with their organisations), employees (along with their organisations) and the governmental actors; and also those agreements (collective agreements) that these actors enter into and which lead to more or less institutionalised relations between the actors. In any IR-system we can identify rules that regulate the relations between labour market parties and it is these rules that are studied in Dunlop’s theory of the IR-system. If we examine this theory of the IR-system it is obvious that it - as a united theory - must be considered quite problematic. The structural functionalism of Parsons was – as is well know – highly criticised during the 1960’s, especially in relation to the idea that social order or social systems were fundamentally constituted by functional needs, and that society is based on some common values (or ideologies as it is formulated by Dunlop) (Mills 1959, Gouldner 1970, Coleman 1986).

However it is remarkable that Dunlop – and his IR-system theory – still appears as a central reference when topical trends in industrial relations are discussed. The reason behind this is probably that although many researchers disagree with the overall mood of explanation that Dunlop uses (structural functionalism), Dunlop did manage to give the IR-research field an explicit frame and conceptualisation. It is this frame which is still used when contemporary researchers try to explain what IR-research is actually dealing with. Thus in a certain sense Dunlop created the scientific field of industrial relations (Bellemare 2000, Kaufmann 2008).

2) Pluralism and Industrial Relation research in Britain. This tradition focuses on collective bargaining and on the organisational setup that is related to collective negotiations. The tradition has been especially dominating in the British context and the main representatives of this tradition have been Clegg and Flanders (Ackers 2007). A major perspective of this tradition is related to explaining and conceptualising industrial relations in the light of the institutional structures related to the collective bargaining system.

In a number of analyses Clegg focuses on the interdependence between the collective bargaining system and the system of organisation in the labour market (Clegg 1976). In his analysis the collective bargaining system deals with characteristics relating to the bargaining structure of the IR-system. Subjects dealt with are: is collective bargaining performed on a centralised or a decentralised level, which subjects are dealt with in the bargaining process (wages, working time, pension, parental leave etc.) and what is not subjected to the process of bargaining. The organisational system relates to the organisational characteristics of the bargaining system. It is also deeply connected to the organisational structure of the trade unions and the employers’ associations. This tradition has played an important role e.g. in the many studies that have been oriented toward explaining organisational tendencies among trade unions.

If we make an overall evaluation of the tradition today, one might argue that the tendencies toward decollectivisation of different IR-systems in Europe have put this tradition in a weak position (Kaumann (2008).

3) Theories of strategic choice and industrial relations. This perspective has been stressed by IR-researchers such as Poole in the 1980’s (Poole 1984, 1986) and Kochan (Kochan 1998) in the 1990’s. The fundamental position in strategic choice and industrial relations theories is that the formation of IR-systems must be related to the IR-actors and to the strategic choices made by those IR-actors. Using an actor based conceptualisation of the social world; this tradition tries to explain IR-institutions as a

4

result of choices made by the IR-actors. For example Poole writes: “ managers, workers and their representatives, and officials of the state and various of its agencies are essentially social ‘actors’ who shape the institutional arrangements in which they operate” (Poole 1986: 11). Poole tries to explain IR-institutions and IR-systems by referring to the actors and their choices, and not to the functional effects of IR-systems as Dunlop does.

Kochan et al. (1994) have also argued that an actor based theoretical framework is most suited for explaining developments in different IR-systems. One perspective stressed by Kochan – but also by others (Child 1972, 1997; Jensen 1998, Jensen 1999) – is that the formation of IR-institutions (such as collective bargaining institutions) depends upon the strategic choices made by the IR-actors. The thesis is that in certain situations IR-actors make choices that have a formative and structuring influence on the forms of institutionalisation that characterises IR-systems (Bellemare 2000). “The central thesis of the strategists affirms that industrial relations behaviour and the outcomes produced by the IR system are determined by the interplay between the environment and the strategic choices made by the actors.” (Bellemare 2000: 385). The point is that trade unions, employers associations and state agencies are continually in a position where they make choices that result in different types of institutional structures. The central theoretical weakness in this tradition is that it is difficult to identify the precise relation between the importance of structure and action. The theory argues – using the concept of strategic choice – that organisations like trade unions can in some way make choices that are independent of the environment. But the question is what does this mean in relation to empirical reality? When is a certain choice independent of the structures that the actors are part of? And can’t we always identify some relation between an organisation/actor and the environment?

4) Rational choice and theories of collective action. A number of specific theories inside IR-research take as a starting point the so called ‘problem of collective action’. These positions argue that social action should be analysed using a rational choice perspective (Olson 1965, Hechter 1987, Elster 1989, Traxler 1995, Coleman 1990, Hagen 2006). This tradition has many similarities with the strategic choice positions dealt with in the former section and the tradition could be presented as part of an action based tradition. The reason why this is not done here is that the collective action tradition is explicitly oriented toward conceptualising the ‘free-rider’ problem in social science. The question raised in the collective action tradition (Olson 1965) relates to the difference between individual and collective action and to the question of how we can explain the establishment of collective actors (Traxler 1995).

The relation between individual and collective rationality is generally a central subject for social sciences in the sense that it relates to questions about how social order is established and reproduced. However this problem is also obviously very relevant to analyses of industrial relations and IR-actors such as trade unions and employers associations. IR-systems are collectively based social orders that are constituted by social actors which to a large degree create collective goods. A question generally formulated inside this tradition is how are IR-systems possible?

This theory stipulates a contradiction between individual and collective rationality in the sense that if individuals are expected to act in a rational manner then collective actions in a number of situations are not possible or explainable. Individuals are expected – because they are assumed to act in a rational way – to free-ride instead of participate; meaning that it is not possible to explain the existence of a collective order.

In social science there are a number of different ways of solving this problem (Hagen 2006: 40ff). One important argument is that individuals act on behalf of norms and not only to maximise their own interests. This is a central argument in this section of sociological research dealing with the problem and has been put forward by Elster (1989).

The theory about free-riding and the problem of collective order are important when we analyse and discuss the formation of collective actors in the labour market. Trade unions and employers

5

associations are confronted with the free-rider problem in the sense that they as organisations both tend to create collective goods, for example in relation to the collective agreements that they negotiate.

5) Critical theory. Marxism played an important role in IR-theory in the 1970’s and 1980’s and constituted a counter position to the systems theoretical position developed by Dunlop (Ackers & Wilkinson (2005: 449). Fox (1974), Hyman (1975, 2001) and others are (and are partly today) among the proponents of this tradition that tries to explain conflicts in the IR-systems by referring to fundamental conflicts between labour and capital.

In Marxist inspired IR-theory the contradiction between labour and capital is an important factor and the position tries to explain the forms of organisation among companies and employees. The conflict between labour and capital will, in principle, always be present although different types of social institutions (e.g. the welfare state) could make this conflict less visible.

However there are some theoretical problems relating to the original classical Marxists position and some conflict about what constitutes the contradiction between labour and capital. Firstly there is the question of the status of the labour value theory that was put forward by Marx. The labour value theory describes the theoretical argument regarding a contradiction between labour and capital, but the labour value theory can not been seen as an adequate theoretical understanding of the functioning of the economy (Sørensen 2005). Secondly there is the question of the status of classical Marxist class theory. The Marxist theory about social classes seems to have been effectively challenged on both empirical and theoretical levels. On an empirical level the class theory has been undermined by the expansion of the middleclass. Theoretically the thesis has been challenged by positions arguing that non economic factors play an increasingly important role in relation to the forms of stratification in late modern societies (Bradley 1996, Pakulski & Waters 1996). This is one reason that has lead to the use – both in general social science and in IR-theory -.of the Weberian concept of status communities and market chances when the formation of opposite interests in capitalism is explained (See also Wright 1997).

Today critical theory exists in different variations related to positions such as regulation theory, or theories of ‘varieties of capitalism’ (Hall & Soskice 2001) or critical theory related to positions stressing the consequences of globalisation for national IR-systems (Hyman 2001a).

6) Human Resource Management (HRM). The HRM tradition has gained much influence during the last 15 to 20 years. This has been related to tendencies toward an individualisation of the management-employee relations on a company level and to the diminished influence among the traditional collective actors (e.g. the trade unions). HRM has also been used to conceptualise individualisation in management-labour relations and has been used to question whether traditional IR-systems and the collective actors in these systems still have a future in the labour market (Kessler & Purcell 2004).

HRM is in many senses not a theoretical tradition that tries to analyse and explain IR-systems in the way that, for example, Dunlop or Clegg tried (Bacon 2003). The HRM tradition is, first and foremost, a variation of the classical personal literature. Kaufmann describes the situation as follows: the “field remains weighted down, however, by a number of conceptual problems and shortcomings. Chief among these are the lack of theory, and in particular, absence of an integrative theoretical base, disagreements about the definition of the field and object of study …. And a penchant to uncritically mix objective investigations of ‘what is’ with normative and prescriptive commitments to ‘what should be’.” (Kaufman 2004b: 321).

The points made by Kaufman – and others – are probably correct. It is mostly as a perspective relevant to personal departments that HRM theory is clearly useful.

An important point made by the HRM tradition is that employees are closely connected to the company they are working in, and that they develop loyalty and responsibility in relation to the company. The expectation is that so far as companies treat their employees as a resource and not as an ‘expense’ then the field for conflict between management and labour is diminished. The employees are

6

thus motivated to take responsibly in the workplace. This tendency is supported by the fact that HRM concepts are often related to team based forms of work. Hierarchical structures are substituted by more decentralised forms of organisation.

Generally – and paradoxily - the most important contribution made by the HRM-tradition to the IR-research seems to be the observation that the traditional object of IR-research (collective organisations, collective bargaining systems) is disappearing. The collective actors and bargaining systems that have dominated in Western Europe and the US for a long period after the Second World War are loosing to new types of more direct relations between the single manager and the single employee. Bacon writes: “The conception of employees within industrial relations remains fundamentally sociological regarding employees as part of a collective sharing a similar experience and common identity (members of a work group, department, workplace, trade union, occupation, and class). In contrast, the conception of employees within HRM is more psychological and individualistic, emphasizing politics to generate commitment from individuals to the organization.” (Bacon 2003:74).

New Developments in IR-Theorising

The coming section will deal with a number of new theoretical trends that can be observed in the IR-research field. Focus will be on new types of conceptualisation inside the IR-fields which to some extent offers new types of interpretation of the industrial relations field. In the following section we will try to conclude by identifying some analytical areas that may – or may not - play a role in the IR-research in the years to come. Firstly though focus shall be on new theoretical trends.

We will focus on five newly established traditions related to social science which in different ways have or will influence the IR-research field. These traditions are: 1) The government tradition, 2) The international political economy tradition (regulation theory and theory of varieties of capitalism), 3) new institutionalism, 4) critical realism, 5) new developments in system theory (Luhmann).

The concept of governance and the theories about governance have had an increasing impact in social sciences over the last ten years. Through the concept of governance this theoretical tradition tries to analyse steering - and forms of regulation in late modern society. In contrast to traditional ways of analysing steering mechanisms, regulations are in the governance tradition seen as autonomous and self regulated and influenced by decentralised steering codes. Focus is not so much on actors and on the relations between actors, but more on the ‘field’ itself. Also it is the ‘field’ on its own that determines the types of actors that are subject to analysis (e.g. employers or managers).

The concept of governance has been developed in a theoretical tradition (Foucault), where the research question is not necessarily oriented toward developing traditional explanations. The tradition is more oriented toward identifying changes and breaks in dominating discourses and dominating social orders. Nicolas Rose writes: “Governance directs attention to the nature, problems, means, actions, manners, techniques and objects by which actors place themselves under the control, guidance, sway and mastery of others, or seek to place other actors, organizations, entities or events under their own sway. Used in this way governance seems a handy and compendious way of pointing to a number of important questions for investigation…. The term seems a useful substitute and analogue for regulation, administration, management and the like, precisely because it is not overly burdened with conceptual baggage.” (Rose 1999: 16).

Inside the IR-tradition Sisson (2007) has argued for a more extensive use of the concept of governance in IR-research. Sisson argues that the traditional concept of regulation could usefully be substituted by governance. Sisson stresses that the concept of regulation has been associated with employee friendly forms of regulation (Sisson 2007: 59). This has meant that IR-research in a way

7

has been more narrowly defined than necessarily. Sisson writes: “In the light of the foregoing, I believe it is time to follow Edwards’ (2005) suggestion and adopt ‘governance of the employment relationship’ as the analytical focus of industrial relations.” (Sisson 2007: 59).

Correspondingly part of the IR-tradition more concerned with labour law has for some years discussed concepts like reflective law. This discussion is also connected to the government discussion (Rogowski & Wilthagen 1994, Bernard & Deakin 2004). The aim of these discussions is to analyse tendencies in the form of regulations relating to labour law that points in the direction of self regulation (or governance) among the labour market parties themselves. This perspective has also been used in relation to analysis of the European Union and the so called method of ‘open coordination.’

International Political Economy, theories of regulation and ‘Varieties of Capitalism’. Regulation theory is not a new position in social science in the sense that sections of the position was developed in the 1970’s and 1980’s using different theories by Althusser Marxism as a starting point. However regulation theory has gained a lot of credibility in IR-research the last five to ten years. This has, among other things, been connected to discussions about International Political Economy.: “debates in IPE have posited the emergence of global governance, located in the ideologies and practices of myriad of international organizations and for some at least in a globally pervasive neoliberal ideology. A key concept in this debate is the international regime – the combination of rules, norms and decision-making processes that govern international organizations and associated processes” (Haworth & Hughes 2003: 667).

Correspondingly theories about ‘varieties of capitalism’ (Hall & Soskice 2001) have also gained influence in IR-research. ‘Varieties of capitalism’ theory offers a special combination of macro and micro founded explanations of tendencies in late modern capitalism. The labour market and industrial relations play a special role in this theoretical tradition. Comparative studies are well known in this tradition and especially analyses of the relations between the labour market parties and the government. The differentiation between liberal and coordinated marked economy – as the distinction was developed by Hall & Soskice (2001) – has been used in IR-theory. IR-systems are in this perspective first and foremost analysed as systems that are influential in relation to the institutional competitiveness of a given country (Konzelmann 2005).

Varieties of Capitalism theory connects industrial relations to more political oriented traditions. When the state is looked upon using a Dunlop perspective it is mostly the state as a labour market actor that is interesting (either as a governmental agency or as an employer); when the state is looked upon in the Varieties of Capitalism perspective then the concept of the state is much more broader and complex than the concept used by Dunlop. The state is dealing with – especially in the coordinated market economies – a number of coordinated functions and the IR-systems are in this perspective just one among a number of institutional structures that influence the overall competitiveness.

New institutionalism. Ever since DiMaggio and Powel in 1983 wrote their famous article about the ‘iron cage revisited’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1983) different types of institutional theory have gained impact in the social sciences and during the last years within IR-theory. Without specifying all variations of institutional theory (see e.g. Sisson 2007, Scott 1995) the major point made by DiMaggio and Powel is that organisations can not be explained or interpreted if a traditional rationalistic and action oriented framework is used. The way Weber analysed bureaucracy is not an adequate way of analysing organisations. New institutionalism argues that organisations are organised and developed through adjustment to the expectations made by the members of the organisation and by the environment. Organisations are not developed in line with rational calculations and considerations about optimising choices (Scott 1995, Wailes et al. 2003, Marginson & Sisson 2004).

8

Institutional theory offers some concepts that seem to be useful in IR-research. One example is the concept of isomorphism – as developed in institutional theory – which offers a conceptualisation of the exchange mechanisms that exist between different IR-systems. Isomorphism can be seen as a concept that could explain tendencies toward convergence as these tendencies are occasionally observed in IR-literature. Parallel to this new institutionalism challenges the rational choice oriented positions in IR-research when it comes to explaining organisational and institutional development in IR-systems. Social actors and their interests are the starting point for much IR-research when it comes to explaining systems of collective bargaining. Using new institutionalism as a theoretical framework changes in bargaining systems might be conceptualised in a different way. Tendencies toward decentralisation in IR-systems might be explained as a result of institutional isomorphism (or institutional copying), rather than as a result of changes in the power balance between the labour market parties. Müller-Jentch writes about the use of new institutional theory in IR-research: “The rationality of decisions… is a facade, primarily serving as the cause of legitimacy.” (Müller-Jentch 2004: 16).

Critical realism. IR-research is rather weak foundationally when meta-theoretical questions are raised (Edwards 2005). Much IR-literature is rather empirical and seems to accept quite a direct relation between empirical observations and theoretical conceptualisation (Kaufmann 2004).

During the last years however there seems to be more attention to the possibility of founding IR-research more explicitly in a broader meta-theoretical frame. The so-called ‘critical realism’ (Sayer 1992) has been suggested in connection with this as a possible meta-theoretical frame for IR-research (Edwards 2006).

Critical realism has since the beginning of the 1990’s developed as a metapostion which on the one side refuses positivism for its lack of explanatory force, and on the other side correspondingly refuses different types of Foucault inspired social constructivism (Sayer 1992, Jensen 1998, Edwards 2005, 2006). Edwards (2005) writes: “It is reasonable to claim, however, that context-sensitive institutional research does fit a broad CR programme. CR is useful at minimum in giving a grounding to the instincts of many IR researchers who shy away from positivism and interpretivism. More constructively, it encourages researchers to think about different levels of causal powers and about the kinds of arguments that they wish to address. For example, when different outcomes are identified under different institutional conditions, what reasons are adduced?” (Edwards 2005: 269-270).

An important concept in critical realism – and relevant in IR-research – is causal power and causal liabilities (Sayer 1992). Sayer argues for a conceptualisation of causality that is not oriented toward identifying simple cause-effect mechanisms as this is often done in the statistically oriented analyses in social sciences. Causality is – in Sayers view – about liability and the possibility that a given liability becomes manifest in a given situation. Says writes: “On the realist view, causality concerns not a relationship between discrete events (‘cause and effect’), but the ‘causal power’ or ‘liabilities’ of objects or relations or more generally their way-of-acting or ‘mechanisms’” (Sayer 1992: 104-105).

The aim of the concept of causal power is to stress that there is no clear or unambiguous relation between a given cause and a given effect, and that a given liability does not always result in an effect.

In relation to IR-research one could say that individualisation among workers could be seen as a causal power that could lead to a lower lever of unionisation in an IR-system. This liability could however be counteracted by other types of liabilities (or causal powers), for example the existence of a Ghent unemployment benefit system. Sayer writes: “Whether a causal power or liability is actually activated or suffered on any occasion depends on conditions whose presence and configuration are contingent.” (Sayer 1992: 107). The argument put forward by Sayer seems highly relevant in IR-studies, especially in relation to comparative studies, where focus is often on the differences and similarities between IR-systems and not the least the causes of these differences.

New system theory (Luhmann). System theory has developed quite dramatically since Parsons and Dunlop. This development is most visible in European social science, where Niclas Luhmann has been

9

a central figure. Unlike Parsons – who at the beginning of his career argued for a combination of action and system based theoretical development (Coleman 1986) – Luhmann alone argued from the system theoretical point of view where the social actor concept in its classical form is refused. The most important concept used by Luhmann is autopoesis, which refers to the capacity of the social system to reproduces itself as well as the preconditions for the systems survival.

There have only been a few attempts to connect IR-theory to the new forms of systems theory created by Luhmann. Luhmann and his system theory play a role in other parts of social science, but has – until now – only to a small extent been included in the IR-area. Rogowski (2000) has tried to use Luhmann and argue that IR-systems should be considered as an independent functional sub-system in line with the legal or economic sub-system. Rogowski writes: “I propose to view the industrial relations system as a functional subsystem of society on the same plane as the legal, the economic or the science systems. The industrial relations system has constituted itself as a fully-fledged functional social system.” (Rogowski 2000: 115). Correspondingly we can observe that system theory in its new versions have also been used in the labour law field (Rogowski & Wilthagen 2004).

In connection with the discussion regarding tendencies toward convergence and diversification of IR-systems in the IR-literature, some have – using Luhmann – argued that the mechanism of autopoesis might lead to the establishment of differentiated IR-systems. Traditional system theory (Kerr et al. 1960) argues that common external conditions (for example common market conditions) would lead to convergence among the IR-systems, however one can use modern system theory to argue the opposite. Luhmann understood systems as autopoietic units that looked at the outside world through a self-referential set of codes established within the system itself. Traxler writes: “The essence of theories of autopoiesis and self-reference (Luhmann, 1984) is that systems do not passively adapt to their environment, but manage their adaptations in directions compatible with their identity. As a consequence, advanced systems theory does not support convergence thinking. On the contrary, the proposition of self-referential systems suggests path dependent adaptive processes that maintain diversity. If one accepts this proposition, then the question is how many degrees of freedom are available when it comes to adaptations.” (Traxler 2003: 142).

Luhmann and the system theory offer the IR-research a perspective that in a renewed form understands IR-regulation and IR-institutions as the answer to functional needs related to the employment situation.

In this section we have dealt with a number of newer social scientific theories that may be able to influence the forming of theories inside the IR-field. One could obviously point in other directions as well, but the positions stressed in the preceding section seem to be the most central.

Conclusion

Drawing a conclusion to the question of tendencies in older and newer theory formation regarding industrial relations is not an easy exercise and as such this will not be a traditional conclusion. This section will instead try to draw attention to some problems which could be raised as relevant to future IR-research in the light of the former discussion of old and new paradigms in IR-research.

The conclusion will deal with central themes that IR-researchers could be expected to deal with and with themes that, to some extent, have been raised earlier in some of the positions above.

The first theme to be emphasised is the concept of an actor. The actor is a central concept in IR-research and is often analysed in an interest based perspective, where motives and action among actors are said to be delimited. This is also apparent in the earlier mentioned theoretical tradition of individual versus collective goods, but also in relation to the understanding of the traditional IR-actors (trade unions, employers’ associations and governmental agencies). Thus we shall point out

10

two tendencies in relation to the conceptualisation of actors in IR-theory. Firstly there seems to be an intensivated discussion about who the actors are in a given IR-system. In employment relations literature one can observe an increasing focus on new types of IR-actors that are not synonymous with the ‘classical actors’ (Sisson 2007). This focus is on actors whose role and position in an IR-system are not as clear and identifiable as the classical actor’s role was. It has also started to include those whose role is not even necessarily connected with the IR-area but rather with the general management of a company. Bellmare writes: “An actor in an industrial relations environment can thus be defined as: an individual, a group or an institution that has the capability, through its action, to directly influence the causal power deployed by other actors in the IR environment (indirect action).” (Bellemare 2000: 386). Secondly there seems to be a general discussion going on about the concept of actor in itself. The interest based conceptualisation of actors and action is challenged by the institutionally based conception of actors, where the interpretation is that it is the institutions that create the actors, rather than the actors (and their interests) that create the institutions. This conception of actor is supported in part by the new institutionalistic tradition.

IR-systems and their coherence will be another central theme in this conclusion. Part of the IR-research today analyses and discusses if, and if so to what extent, existing IR-systems are ‘disappearing’ or disintegrating. This is observed in diminishing levels of trade union density, or in connection with diminishing levels of collective bargaining coverage. Theoretically these types of observation imply discussions about the coherence (or lack of coherence) in IR-systems and how this coherence can be conceptualised. Is it interests among actors (like trade unions and employers associations) that are the ‘bearing construction’ in the IR-system? And will the system disintegrate if the classical actors disappear? Or are IR-systems constituted around the handling of the field or area that deals with employment relations as a special social relation? One could ask questions like: which types of problems are handled or solved by the IR-systems? Or what is the problem to which an IR-system is the functional solution? Maybe IR-systems are changing because the problems and the questions that traditional IR-systems were the answer to have changed. So in identifying new forms of IR-systems one has to identify the problems or questions that are raised in the employment relations of today.

A third area concerns the importance of comparative analysis in IR-research. Much comparative IR-research has been dealing with the types of research that Dunlop once called ‘the industrial relation zoo’. However comparative IR-research has not only consisted of descriptions of differences and similarities among IR-systems. The comparative perspective has also been used as a starting point for developing theory (Bamber et al., Clegg, Traxler). The theoretical development in this area has moved in two main directions. First we must expect that the intensified use of statistical methods in social science will increase the possibility of identifying and generalising about IR-systems based on comparative studies (Whitfield & Strauss 2000). This may also lead to a growing focus on empirical generalisations that could push theoretical consideration into the background. The second direction that comparative studies might develop in relates to the possibility of developing more regime or model like observations around clusters of IR-systems in different countries. This type of theory building has been important and useful in the welfare state tradition (Espying-Andersen 1991), but has broken through into IR-research only to a small extent. The theory regarding varieties of capitalism could be seen as an example of such a tendency and might be useful in the IR-field.

Developing a meta-theoretical frame of reference is the fourth theme that will be dealt with in this conclusion. IR-researchers have – as described in the previous part of the article – only to a limited extent dealt with meta-theoretical considerations. An example of this the comprehensive literature in social science written during the last twenty years about social constructivism (theory of discourse etc.) that has had only a very limited – if any at all – impact on the IR-research

11

tradition. Discussing meta-theoretical orientations in IR-research seems however both relevant and needed (Edwards 2005 2006). In the previous section critical realism has been emphasised as a meta-theoretical position which could contribute to discussions about how IR-theory should be more conscious of its own foundation. Most paradigms or positions in IR-research seems to have a fundamentally ‘realist’ perspective in their analysis in spite of all the other differences that can be observed.

The fifth theme in this conclusion relates to the conceptualisation of regulation and steering in the IR-tradition. In the previous section regulation was mostly discussion in connection with the possibility of using governance as a concept instead of regulation (Sisson 2007). IR-research has traditionally focused on the institutionalised forms of regulation in the labour market. Analysing relations and structures of relations between labour market parties are a central theme in IR-research.

The traditional distinction between hierarchy and market (Coase, Williamsson) might be a useful starting point for understanding changes in the form of regulation/governance in late modern IR-systems. Two points should be stressed in relation to this distinction between market and hierarchy and the IR-field.

Firstly, IR-researchers have only to a limited extent analysed market based employment relations in institutional terms or in an institutional perspective. Some argue that market based employment relations are a central field in IR-research (Sisson 2007, Kauffmann 2008). Analysing the company as an organisation of the employment relations here seems quite relevant. In connection with this it also seems highly relevant to a ‘translation’ of market based employment relations to institutional concepts.

Secondly the distinction between market and hierarchy could be used – also in IR-theory – to analyse and discuss if we can observe (new) forms of governance/regulation that do not fit into the market/hierarchy distinction. Nicolas Rose argues that generally we can observe an expansion in the number of fields/areas that are governed (or regulated) neither through market or hierarchies, but rather through self-organised networks consisting of a number of different actors. Rose writes: “It is argued that these [CSJ: the self-regulating networks] are of particular significance today because recent political strategies have attempted to govern neither through centrally controlled bureaucracies (hierarchies) nor through competitive interactions between producers and consumers (markets), but through self-organizing networks. Politics is seen as increasingly involving exchanges and relations between a range of public, private and voluntary organizations, without clear sovereign authority.” (Rose 1999:17). This perspective might also be relevant in the IR-research field.

Globalisation, Europeanisation and denationalisation are the sixth and final theme in this conclusion. Globalisation theory has played a prominent role in social sciences during the last twenty years and has resulted in a steady flow of books and articles about the subject. Anthony Giddens has defined globalisation as the situation where social events taking place at one place on the globe are able to influence social events in other remote part of the globe within a rather short time span. Concepts from globalisation literature seem to be useful in redefining traditional discussions in the IR-field. Discussions about convergence and divergence among different national IR-systems could be usefully connected to the analysis of globalisation (Dobbin 2005). Correspondingly the globalisation perspective could also be used in an attempt to put focus on other parts of the world than the traditional parts analysed.in the IR-litterature. The IR-tradition has conventionally had a rather Western European and especially Anglo-Saxon bias. This is especially the case with IR-systems in Europe and the US (together with Australia, Japan and a few other countries) which have been subjected to analysis. These countries – and their IR-systems – have formed the empirical basis for theorising in the IR-field. Especially their labour markets with their

12

strong institutionalised bargaining systems and their strong labour market parties have formed some kind of ideal in IR-research since Dunlop. Correspondingly the crises in IR-research – and the crises of the IR-systems – have been largely connected to changes in the European and American IR-systems. Deregulation, deinstituionalisation and decollectivisation are all seen as central tendencies in the labour markets and have led some researchers to talk about the end of IR-theory and the end of IR-systems. These kinds of trends are often related to changes at the labour markets in Western Europe and the US in the light of post-industrial transformation processes. The outlook in the IR-research field is however rather westernised, especially if we take a global perspective on the IR-field. The intense process of industrialisation that characterises countries such as China, India and other parts of the world points in the direction that IR-research should be moved away from Europe and the US to a much larger degree than it already has been. In many parts of what used to be the third world we can also observe the establishment of IR-system that in some way or other regulate (or govern) the employment relations in companies that is reminiscent of the classical industrial companies that used to dominate in Europe and the US in the 1950’s. While sections of IR-literature tend to mourn over decollectivisation tendencies in the IR-field one should be aware of that fact that there have probably never been as many classical industrial companies and workplaces in the world as we see today. These companies and workplaces are just not situated in Europe or the US and do not have the same institutional characteristics (strong trade unions, strong collective bargaining institutions etc.), but as a subject for research – and not the least as a subject for theorising about the IR-field – they seems to be just as relevant as the IR-systems in Europe and the US.

Generally the aim of this article has been to create an overview of existing and dominating theoretical positions and paradigms in IR-research. In that context we have identified six major positons that to some extend play or have played an role in international IR-research. Secondly the article have raised a discussion about new trends in social science and have applied some of these trends to the IR-field trying to identify new usufull cencoptualisations in IR-theory and IR-research. Thirdly and finally the conclusion have raised some general issues that could be usefull in the development of furture IR-theoretical considerations.

13

References:

Ackers, P. (2007), Collective Bargaining and Industrial Democracy: Hugh Clegg and the Political Foundation of British Industrial Relations Pluralism, British Journal of Industrial Relations 45(1): 77-101Ackers, P. & Wilkinson, A. (2005), British Industrial Relations Paradigm: A critical outline of History and Prognosis”, Journal of Industrial Relations 47(4): 443-456.Arkers, P. & Wilkinson (eds.) (2003): “Understanding Work and Employment: Industrial Relations in Transition”, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Bacon, N. (2003), Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations, pp. 71-88 in Ackers & Wilkinson 2003.Bamber, G., Landsbury, R. & Wailes, N. (Eds.) (2004): “International and comparative employment relations – Globalisation and the developed market economies”, (4. ed.). Sage, London.Bellemare, G. (2000), End Users: Actors in the Industrial Relations System?, British Journal of Sociology, 38(3):383-405.Bernard, C., Deakin, S. & Hobbs, R. (2004): »Reflexive law, corporate social responsibility and the evolution of labour standards: the case of working time«, Working paper No. 294, ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.Clegg, H.A. (1976), Trade Unionism under Collective Bargaining: A Theory Based on Comparisons of Six Countries, Blackwell, Oxford.Coase, R. (1937): “The Nature of the Firm”, Economia 16(4)Coleman, J.S. (1986), Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action, The American Journal of Sociology, 91(6): 1309-1335.DiMaggio, P. J. & W. Powell, The iron cage revisited - institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields", American Sociological Review, 48 (1983): 147-60.Dobbin, F. (2005), Is Glaobalization Making Us All the Same?, British Journal of Sociology, 43(4): 569-576.Dunlop, J.T. (1958), Industrial Relations System, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Edwards, P. (2005), The challenging but promising future of industrial relations: developing theory and methods in context-sensitive research, Industrial Relations Journal, 36(4): 264-282Edwards, P. (2006), Industrial Relations and Critical Realism: IR’s Tacit Contribution, Workingpapers in Industrial relations, 2006:80, Universaity of Warwick.Elster, J. (1989), The cement of society – A study of social order, Cambridge University Press.Fox, A. (1974): “Beyond contract: Work, Power and Trust Relations”, London, Faber.Frege, C. (2005), Variaties of Industrial Relations Research: Take-Over, Convergence and Divergence, 43:2(179-207)Gall, G. (2003): “Marxism and Industrial relations”, in Arckers & Wilkinson (2003) Gouldner, A.W. (1970): “The coming crises of western sociology”. Heinemann, London.Hagen, R. (2006), Nyliberalismen og samfunnvitenshapene – Refleksjonsteorier for det moderne samfunnet, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.Hall, P, & Soskice, D. (2001), Varieties of Capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantages, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Haworth, N. & Hughes, S (2003), International Political Economy and Industrial Relations, British Journal of Industrial Relations 41(4): 665-682Hechter, M. (1987): “Principles of Group Solidarity”, University of Califonia Press, BerkeleyHyman, R. (1975): “Industrial relations: A marxist introduction”. Macmillan, London.Hyman, R. (2001): ”Understanding European Trade Unionism – Between Market, Class and Society”, Sage Publications, London.

14

Hyman, R. (2001a), The Europeanisation – or erosion – of industrial relatibons?, Industrial Relations Journal 32(4): 280-293Jensen, C. Strøby (1998): ”Arbejdsmarked og europæisk integration II”. Sociologisk Institut, Københavns Universitet.Jensen, C. Strøby (1999): “Between strategic choice and adaption – The role of UNICE in European social dialogue.” In Zeytinoglu, I.U.: “Changing works relationships in industrialized economies”. John Benjamin, New York.Jensen, C. Strøby: “Arbejdsmarkedsrelationer i Danmark – fra konfliktbaseret koncensus til koncensusbaseret konflikt.”, Jursit- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.Kaufman, B.E. (2004), The Global Evolution of Industrial Relations – Events, idear and the IIRA, Geneva, International labour Office.Kaufmann, B.E. (2008), Paradigms in Industrial Relations: Original, Modern and Versions in Between, Britisk Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(2):314-339.Kerr, C., Dunlop, J.T., Harbison, F. & Myers, C.A. (1960), Industrialism and industrial man: The problems of labour and the management of economic growth, Harvard University, Cambridge Mass..Kessler, I. & Purcell, J. (2004), Individualism and Collectivism in Industrial Relations”, pp. 313-338 in Edwards, P. (2004) (ed.), Industrial Relations – Theory and Practice, second edition, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Konzelmann, S.J. (2005), Varieties of Capitalism: Production and Market Relations in the USA and Japan, British Journal of Industrial Relations 43 (4): 593-603.Marginson, P. & Sisson, K. (2004), European Integration and Industrial Relations – Multilevel Governance in the Making,, New York, Palgrave MacmillanMills, Wright C. (1959): “The sociological imagination”. Oxford University, New York.Müller-Jentsch, W. (2004), Theoretical Approaches to Industrial Relations”, pp. 1-40 in Kaufman, B.E. (2004): “Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship”, Industrial Relations Research Association Series, Industrial Relations Research Association, University of Illinois.Olson, M. (1965), The logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of groups, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Poole, M. (1986): »Industrial relations – origins and patterns of national diversity«. Routledge & Kegan Poul, London.Rogowski, R. & Wilthagen, T. (1994): »Reflexive labour law, Studies in industrial relations and employment regulation«. Kluwer Law & Taxation, Deventer Paperback, Boston.Rogowski, R. (2000), Industrial Relations as a Social System, Industrielle Beziehungen, 7(1): 97-126.Rose, N. (1999): “Powers of Freedom. Reframing Political Thought”, Cambridge University Press.Sayer, A. (1992), Methods in social science: A Realist Approach, 2. ed. Routledge, London. Scott, R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Sage Publications, LondonSisson, K. (2007), Revitalising Industrial Relations: making the most of the ‘institutional turn’, Workingpapers in Industrial relations, 2007:85, Universaity of Warwick.Sørensen, Aa. B. (2005): “Foundation of a rent-based Class-analysis”, in Orlin Wright, E. (2005): “Approaches to Class Analysis”, Cambridge University Press.Traxler, F. (1995), Two Logics of Collective Action in Industrial relations?, pp. 23-45, in Crouch, C. & Traxler, F. (1995), Organized Industrial Relations in Europe: What Future, Avebury, Aldershot.Traxler, F. (2003), Bargaining, State Regulation and the Trajectories of Industrial Relations, European Journal of Industrial Relations 2003 (2): 141-161.

15

Wailes, N., Ramia, G. & Landsbury, R. (2003), Interests, Institutions and Industrial Relations, British Journal of Industrial Relations 41(4): 617-637Whitfield, K. & Strauss, G. (2000): “Methods Matter: Changes in Industrial Relations Research and their implications”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(1): 141-151.Williamson, O.E. (1975): “Markets and hierarchies : analysis and antitrust implications : a study in the economics of internal organization”, Free Press, New YorkWright, E.O. (1997): “Class counts: Comparative studies in class analysis”. Cambridge University, Cambridge.

16